2 ms·

First, the anticipated loss in the case of that 0.1% scenario is infinite: you die. A rational person would do anything possible to lower the probability of tha

First, the anticipated loss in the case of that 0.1% scenario is infinite: you die. A rational person would do anything possible to lower the probability of that happening. Well, compared to 0.93% chance of dying in a motor vehicle crash[1] the same rational person would do anything possible to avoid motor vehicles. Based on the percentages in the article my chance of catching covid and dying from it is 0.003%, so I'm not gonna take the vaccine. On a side note I am not surprised to read that the author of the article is a "biotech entrepreneur". [1] https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-o...

noch 5y ago
> On a side note I am not surprised to read that the author of the article is a "biotech entrepreneur". Well, I sympathise with a bias against biotech entrepreneurs. Just a few days ago, I posted an article taking the opposite side of the debate, by a different entrepreneur and it was summarily flagged. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27485480 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27485480 So perhaps, after this ad hoc A|B test I should conclude that there's a general bias against self-taught polymaths and towards credentialed "experts"?